The author of this book attempted to tackle a very interesting subject but, to the English-language readership's chagrin, did not seem to bother to have the English-language edition of the presumably Dutch original either translated into proper English or proof-read. The result is a linguistic hodge-podge which precludes any kind of meaningful reading. Trying to decipher what the author is trying to say is often an extremely frustrating experience. This book has shocked and saddened me.

Kerber effectively demonstrates the limits of women's roles at the outset of the American Revolution and shows how these roles changed. For instance, Enlightenment thinkers, such as Rousseau, thought that women should be confined to politically passive domestic duties (a view which prevailed at the beginning of the Revolution). Kerber focuses on several women--Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft--who exeplified politically active women that defied these 'Enlightenment' views. Though these women were the exception, they influenced other women that it was acceptible to be politically informed and still excell in their domestic duties. According to Kerber, this led to a political transformation of women's roles termed "Republican Motherhood," a concept that encouraged women to be informed politically and use their domestic influence to raise virtuous republican sons, and to politically influence brothers, husbands and fathers. This transformation from politically inactive domestic roles to active, Kerber argues, laid the foundation for the women's rights and abolitionist's movements.

Well, it is outdated, which should be obvious since the country is now The Democratic Republic of Congo and all. But it may be useful if you need simple historial information. Its analysis seems a bit biased, it was publised by the US Army after all..

can't do better in faking information, historical fact and contemporary events... certainly not a book for a historical research...

This book is the collection of lies. The writer has no idea about what is going on in that region. It is his imagination. Too bad that these kind of books still are being published.

have never in my life seen a bigger lie..... Very sad that people nowadays change history in their own aims.

Most writers when they write, whether it is fiction or non-fiction, tend to do some sort of research. I find that Mr. Pettifers writng is based not on unbiased research, but based on
his "patrons" distorted view on history. Mr. Pettifer has taken a one-sided approach to the Kosovo conflict. By referring to the region as "Kosova", he legitimizes the aspirarations of separtists terrorists in that region.
From his previous writings to this latest "reportage" I would guess that Mr. Pettifer could not make it as an investigative reporter, but instead choose to write for a public relations firm that has terrorists for clients.
I would recommend Salonicus Terminus, by Fred A Reed, for unbiased reporting on the Balkans as well as (the Republic of) Macedonia!

This tired collection of essays managed to miss the entire flavor of the country and the question. The lack of perspective on the issues is obvious - there is not a single Macedonian contribution or perspective in the mix.

Reviewed by Zhidas Daskalovski (School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London) E-mail: daskalovski@hotmail.com _________________________________________

In less then a year time span, the academic world was offered two accounts of the so-called Macedonian Question. First, in 1999, James Pettifer edited The New Macedonian Question, and then, in 2000, Victor Roudometof presented his The Macedonian Question. Both books were compiled by visiting professors at academic institutions based in Thessaloniki, Greece, Petiffer at the Institute of Balkan Studies, Roudometof at American College Of Thessaloniki. Given the political situation in the Southern Balkans, this fact raises the question about who wants to reintroduce a "Macedonian question" in the academic and indirectly, in the policy making world, and in whose interest this might be. An informed observer would immediately notice that both monographs are biased in the selection of essays and themes covered. Roudometof, for example, writing a book concerning Macedonia, does not include a single contribution from authors originating from Republic of Macedonia, while Petiffer has two reprints of articles and only one new piece written by a Macedonian sociologist.

For a thorough review on Macedonia, see John Shea's book "Macedonia and Greece: The struggle to define a new balkan nation"

An author would have to work awfully hard to make the history of the USSR and the aggressive aspects of its foreign policy dull. But these two authors manage to pull it off. This snoozer reads like a bad military manual, with authors that seem utterly unable to tell a story, preferring instead to dwell on the incredibly uninteresting minutae of military logistics. Even when it tries to be interesting by giving you insider information on the thought processes of Soviet officialdom, whether through insider information, official correspondence or newly declassified Kremlin documents, it still manages to underwhelm the reader. The writers should have focused on writing this as a history rather than as a textbook for a military academy which is how it reads.

As if the narrative isn't bad enough, the writing style is at best amateurish. This book reads like a rough draft. Thus it is difficult to decide which is worse, the writing of the book or the total lack of editing done by the publisher.

Anyway, I normally keep the books I have read in my book collection. This one will be donated to my local library's used book fundraiser before it can stink up my house any further. Come to think of it, I hate to cause yet another individual to waste their hard-earned money on this coma-inducer. But hey, it's for a good cause!

This book is awful. Do not buy it under any circumstances. Sarin and Dvoretsky have no understanding of history or strategy. They simply fulminate against the Soviet regime. They claim to have used new documents from the Russian archives, but none of the documents they cite is of any great significance (they are largely anecdotal). There are many better books on the Soviet military and Soviet foreign policy, so don't waste your time with this gibberish

Not a bad book, although at times it was quite tendious to read. It gives a basic overview of Soviet involvement in major world coflicts (Spanish civil War, WW2, Vietanam, Arab-Israeli wars etc). It is quite heavy on militaristic elements, which would be interesting to anyone interested in how wars are fought and funded. The historical backgrounds of the wars are briefly discussed, as fell as the fallout created by conflict. Interesting chapter about Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, which gives a detailed look into the geo-political reasons for the invasion. All in all, not a bad book, but lacking in historical depth.

This is a horrible book. Rice claims on page 22 that Plato did not understand the fact/value distinction. This is absurb; moreover, it is Rice who is baffled by the fact/value distinction as is evidenced in the example he gives. He says water has two hydrogen molecules for every one oxygen molecule. He calls this a fact. He says a chemistry professor who stated that this was unjust, would be making a 'value' statement, an absurb normative arguement since tha 'fact' is so obvious. But is it? In truth, the 'fact' of H2O is a product of a 'value'; the scientific or philosophical 'value' that originated in Greece before Socrates and was made possible for human beings through the life and work of Thales, Socrates, Plato et al. The 'value' to look at water in a scientific way- to discover it's molecular composition, as opposed to simply drinking it or worshipping it, as is still done today by Priests who sprinkle drops on the head of newborns in front of church congregations, is the philsophic 'value'. Plato understood the fact/value distinction and rejected it. He tried to define philosophy as a search for truth, a serch for what is, this 'value' precedes any 'fact'. Again, on page 22, ice moronically states that Plato thought values were facts. Garbage! Plato articulated the exact opposite opinion, he struggled to show 'facts' were 'values'. This is what is radical about philosophy and why Socrates had to die at the hands of the state, he undermined common beliefs, religious myths and laws. Rice has inherited this endevour without fully understanding t's origins. He has no right to interpret 'The Republic', if right is understood as being correct or accurate. He impairs direct access to Plato's texts by skewing the words with his own unexamined prejudices. He is a modern day Thrasymachus teaching for money and wasting his time 'interpreting' Plato to his tution paying students. This book is pitiful because it robs a student of an education; it fails to treat the dialogue as a dramatic work abd hodge-podge picks out things to further his own unexamined assumptions and academic conceits. For shame- the book is unjust.

This book is clearly written, and broadens the debate towards later philosophers who were inspired by the Republic. As to the fact/value distinction (see the previous review of this book), it was indeed not used by Plato (as Rice correctly explains) since it is Hume who is credited with creating these concepts.
Rice writes on p. 22:
"Plato does not divide the cosmos into a world of facts, which we can know through the senses disciplined through the methods of the sciences, and a world of values, which we can know through normative inquiry. Rather, the whole cosmos is a moral one through and through; NATURE (the Greek word is Physis) includes not only facts such as those regarding water, but also facts about values, and sure knowledge of nature only comes through philosophy."
But this book is to short to be of any real use for an in-depth reading of the Republic. For example the crucial allegory of the Cave is only discussed in 1 & 1/2 pages. The best guides for a serious study of the Republic remain, in my opinion, Julia Annas' and Nicholas White's.

This book, which was originally David Gibbs' PhD disseratation is perhaps the most ludicrous work ever produced in the history of academia. Gibbs claims that the US intervention in the Congo following their indepedence was motivated entirely by investor Maurice Templesman's interest in the Congolese Diamond mines. According to Gibbs, after Kennedy's election in 1960 the US stepped up its intervention in the Congo since Tempelsman and Kennedy were close, and he thus influenced the Administration to intervene to ensure that the Diamond mines would be controlled by the US. Gibbs downplays the US interest in preventing Communist or Soviet influence in the region. In fact, Gibbs has stated elsewhere that covert operations like the on in the Congo are not kept secret in order to keep it from foreign governments, but to prevent America's own citizens from finding out about it! Tempelsman in fact wrote a respone MIT in which he ridicules this slander, noting that one man cannot create US policy, even if he wanted to. Gibbs, in his characteristic cynical fashion, proudly hangs the letter on the door to his office. This excuse for an academic work somehow got Gibbs a job at the University of Arizona's Department of Political Science where he continues to teach his paranoid conspiracy theories to young students, many of whom unfortunately start believing it. Among other gems by David N. Gibbs include his statement that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 posed no threat to the US, that the US coups in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954 were influenced by narrow business interests in oil and bananas respectively, and that all US foreign policy is controlled by business interests who use their power to get the US Government to do their bidding. Never in the history of International Relations theory has such an absurd theory been postulated. Even Radical theorists like Gabriel Kolko view US policy as tailored to the general needs of capitalism, but not to individual companies. Meanwhile, Gibbs continues to hurt our young students minds with his toxic waste. The University of Arizona should be ashamed to have him in their department, and hopefully he will not get tenure for the nonsense he writes or else more young minds will be harmed.

This book is based on the Business Conflict Model, which Gibbs uses to explain US foreign policy in developing nations. As you may have guessed, the model assumes that all foreign policy to third world nations is based on private business interest. It is us policy to protect American interest abroad. Usually that includes business investment and such. Anyway the book uses one approach to understand US policy , while also offering that other approaches are not as useful.

The idea behind writing this horribly amateuristic work was noble: to gather a large number of encyclopedic facts about the wars of Yugoslavian succession--something that would be useful to historians, journalists, politicians, and ordinary people.

Examples of gross errors and misrepresentations:

In one part of the book the main war protagonists are listed in the alphabetical order. Since one of the main characteristics of these wars has been their inhumanity, it is hard to believe that most of those currently or previously imprisoned at the Scheveningen prison (awaiting the trial at the Hague war crimes tribunal) are not listed. But those who are listed are sometimes listed on the wrong side, as is the case with Rasim Delic (Bosnian army), who is listed as "a veteran of the JNA Vukovar campaign." Vukovar was, of course, besieged by the Serbians, but the authors missed that one.

One of the most infamous Serbian warlords, Seselj, is listed as having been born in 1941 (false). The birth year is sometimes not even presented, as in the case of Blagoje Adzic, who was not even a teenager in 1941, so it's hard to believe that he was in the Partisans, as the authors claim.

The authors glorify Muhamed Filipovic, the former ambassador to London, to the point of making the reader think that Filipovic himself was the source of those entries. However, since there too are numerous errors present, it's probably the case that the authors themselves decided that "during 1992 MBO [Filipovic's Muslim Bosniak Organization] joined a small liberal party [headed by Kadic] and formed LBO, which to this day remains a true voice of non-secular Bosniaks." Considering that Kadic's liberals are still well and alive on the political spectrum of Bosnia, while LBO didn't even manage to gather sufficient votes to enter the Parliament the last time around, I wonder where and how the authors gathered their "encyclopedic" info.

The authors showcase their ignorance when they say that ex-Yugoslavian nations were shunned at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, where "Yugoslavian nations were suspended and barred from participating." So who was the audience at the opening ceremony so warmly greeting? Some impersonators posing for the Bosnian Olympic Committee and delegation? Also, the very real successes of the 1992 Croatian Olympic basketball team is also in the virtual realm. Hmmm...

The connection between Thessaloniki in Greece and the Serbian desire for access to the Adriatic is lost on all but the authors. If the Serbians wanted access to the sea through this Greek port, they would have surely not attacked Dubrovnik, and would have directed their mortars to Greece.

Even maps are sometimes inaccurate. On one of the maps Mostar is entirely within the Croatian territory and it doesn't even border the Bosnian territory, while it's totally emerged in the Bosnia entity on the next map.

It is a shame that this horrific book got a favorable review, if only because those reviewing it lack the background to verify the claims presented by the authors. If your interest is the break-up of Yugoslavia, there are much finer works out there.

First of all Lukavica isnt in the center of Sarajevo as this book says. Secondly, the procenteges used to describe population are reverted and incorrect.

Very purly and badly written book. It will just confuse you.

I was born in Sarajevo, and lived there until 1995 so i was 'living' situation this book tries to portrait and fails at evry aspect of it.

The previous review makes some very good points about the many flaws in this hastily compiled and poorly written "historical dictionary." However, I don't believe the intent of the authors was to engage in a propaganda exercise, nor that the publisher had some hidden agenda in printing it; on the contrary, it is part of a series of "European Historical Dictionaries," which, if this volume is any indication, are not of a very high quality. The problem with this book is that it seems to be more of a political lexicon for the Republic of Croatia rather than an actual historical dictionary. For if it was a historical dictionary, it would not contain uncritical entries on certain medieval Croatian kings (like Trpimir II and Kresimir I, II & III), whose very existence beyond the realm of legend is doubted by most serious historians of this region during the Middle Ages, whether in Croatia or abroad. Even more controversial is the uncritical acceptance of the theory that the pre-Ottoman era heretics of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia were Bogumils (a heresy otherwise centered in Bulgaria). This issue is still the subject of much controversy among historians and far from settled. These are just two examples which show that the authors are not critical historians, and that they depended too heavily on a few sources for such information. Also, if this were truly a historical dictionary, there would not be insubstantial one-line entries on such important Croatian historical figures such as 19th century writers August Senoa and Antun Gustav Matos or politicians like Ante Trumbic. There is no entry at all for the very important turn-of-the-century political leader Frano Supilo, while at the same time there are entries for often obscure and sometimes laughable contemporary political figures like Hrvoje Sosic, Slavko Degoricija, Joja Ricov, Marija Peakic-Mikuljan and even the (recently assassinated) Serbian war criminal and all-around thug Arkan. In this sense, this "dictionary" even fails as a "who's who" for the contemporary political scene in Croatia - particularly since it was published five years ago and is now truly dated.

"The Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Croatia" is a controversial book, beginning with its title. The Republic of Croatia became recognized as a sovereign country in 1992. The question that poses itself, before we even enter the contents of this dictionary, is whether it is at all possible to write the history of a state little more than two years after its international recognition, when the civil war from which it emerged had yet to reach its peak?

Wrapping a political agenda in a "scientific", usually "historical," folder is just one of the methods employed in promoting a political goal into an internationally recognized status. The claim that a certain political aspiration has historical roots and that as such it has been an object of scientific research, makes the aspiration legitimate. Moreover, if it is not challenged it acquires the solidity of fact and paves the way to the desired changes. The conflict between current politics and history is an area of research that is probably not lacking material for exploration nowadays. This book expands the controversy, adding a new spin to it by insinuating itself, with all its disregard for the facts, its fabrications and prevarications in the reference section of a respected university library where academic research usually begins.

Inaccuracy of data, one of the major problems with this book, strikes the reader from the very first pages. The infamous Nazi satellite state, the Independent State of Croatia, according to the authors, was proclaimed on April 10, 1942,(Chronology xxiii) exactly one year later than it really occured on April 10, 1941. If the proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia were presented accurately in this book, it would have been viewed in the line of two other salient historical events which all happened within 8 days in April 1941, and the nature of this Nazi satellite country would have been self-evident.

April 6, 1941Attack on Yugoslavia with the bombing Belgrade by German army. April 10, 1941 Proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia April 14, 1941Recognition of the Independent State of Croatia by Germany and Italy.

One of the longest entries, the "Borders of Croatia" (36) creates only further confusion since Croatia is also a geographical area having different borders from the Republic of Croatia. The following is perhaps a good illustration: The present interruption of the Croatian territory at Neum goes back to the same time, when Bosnia-Herzegovina was given access to the sea. It was a concession of Dubrovnik to the Ottoman Empire. It is exactly in this place that the Bosnian President Izetbegovic now wants a corridor to the sea for the Muslims.

According to the authors of this book, although Neum has been a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina for about 300 years, Neum is here defined by the authors as a "present interruption of the Croatian territory." The implication is that it is a Croatian territory, that the territory is interrupted, and that such an interruption is only for the "present," which further implies that it is not only temporary but also of a short duration. The next politically loeaded statement informs that the Bosnian President Izetbegovic " now wants a corridor to the sea for the Muslims."

Describing Neum as a corridor in political terminology implies no more than a geographical connection to something rather than the legitimate claim to that territory on other grounds. The claim that it is the Bosnian President Izetbegovic who "wants" it suggests two things: that it is (only) he who makes that claim and that such a claim is rather subjective because he "wants," which sounds rather personal, almost like a whim. And why does he want it? It is said that he wants it for Muslims, although he, as the president of the state, at least officially, represents all the nationalities who live in the state over which he presides.

The same thing could have been described as a territorial dispute between the states of the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Bosnia wants the borders to remain unchanged, claiming their control over Neum to be historically grounded, since 300 years of their legitimate possession of Neum was only interrupted during World War II, when it was controlled by the Independent State of Croatia, a Nazi satellite state. But, such an account, although closer to the facts, would not make the Croatian claim sound justified.

On the other hand entries that have nothing in common with the Croatian nation or the Republic of Croatia are included such as: "Miroslav Gospel" (156), "Sevdalinke" (193) "Bosanska Posavina" (39) etc. It is characteristic that all those apparently unrelated entries have one thing in common - a Bosnian element. The explanation for such a criterion can be found in the phrase that "Croatia officially inherited the borders fixed by the former Yugoslavia". This statement too is loaded with the implication that the present boarders of Croatia are not the ones with which the Republic of Croatia should be content, because they are officially inherited, and inherited from the former Yugoslavia, which was a Communist country. Merely by that fact it should be questioned. And the way they were established by the former Yugoslavia is that they were "fixed". If something is "fixed" it is rather imposed than mutually agreed to. And what was imposed by the former Communist regime was, of course, not just!

Questioning the borders of the Republic of Croatia to the extent and in the manner the authors did in this book, indicates a political agenda of Croatian territorial expansion into Bosnian territories. In view of such claims, this book could also be perceived as a piece of propaganda rather than an impartial historical overview. It is worth exploring how this book was placed in the reference section of a reputable university library (Robarts Library - University of Toronto), and what the motives of the publisher to promote this manuscript were.